Cake

Iowa's opportunity to provide equality

By: Daily Iowan Editorial Board

Posted: 6/17/08

For Californians, this day is one surrounded either by fame, or by infamy: On May 15, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on gay marriage; the decision will take effect today. California will then join Massachusetts as the only states offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples - a service once (briefly) provided in Iowa as well. Unfortunately, just as in past struggles for equality and civil rights, closed-minded people continue to make the movement as difficult as it is divisive. But, despite the present discord, history will recognize and commend the leaders of this effort. To that end, the Iowa courts would do well to remove their former ruling from its present stay in limbo. Until that time, it seems "the pursuit of happiness" will remain largely unavailable to many of those who are legally entitled to it.

Depending on whom you ask, Iowa's legalization of gay marriage might be described in any number of ways, but "lengthy" would certainly not be one of them. The day after District Court Judge Robert Hanson deemed Iowa's gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, he promptly issued a stay of his ruling; only one gay couple was actually able to receive a marriage license. Eventually, an appeal will likely bring the issue before the Iowa Supreme Court. Should the court decide to review the case, it can either affirm Hanson's initial ruling or issue a reversal. In the meantime, both sides are doing all they can to rally support.

Of course, the difficulty inherent in the fight for gay rights remains ever persistent, as evidenced by a recent proposal to amend California's Constitution. Aptly referred to as the Limit on Marriage Amendment, the proposal would once again reserve the right to marry for straight couples only. Given marriage's intimate ties to traditional religious and family values, this sort of obstinacy is unlikely to be extinguished by anything other than time. After all, changed minds are rare when both sides of an issue feel a moral obligation to stand their ground. Rather, it seems that regardless of what decision is made, any sort of universal agreement is a long way off.

Ultimately, progress must likely stem from the same source that facilitated change in previous struggles for civil rights. Throughout recent history, America's youth has always been adamant in its various calls for change - each generation helping to chip away at traditional biases that are falsely held in the name of morality. The current movement seems no different; it is most forcibly marked by a dynamic base of young supporters. Indeed, it seems that the greatest social movements can only come from those who have yet to adopt the status quo.

If it is in the interest of the Iowa courts to ensure equal rights among citizens, Hanson's original decision must be upheld. California and Massachusetts have already begun setting the stage for the effort to ensure gay rights. As such, Iowa has the chance to help lead the way in eliminating our time's greatest threat to universal equality. Of course, such a decision is not likely to gain unanimous popularity in the near future, but this sort of social change rarely does. And, considering the undeniable improvements made by America's previous movements for civil rights, it seems that temporary social discord is a price well worth paying.

One Iowa / Lambda Legal Statement:

As you may have heard, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marriage, and California soon will join the list of places where same-sex couples may marry. If you are considering travel to California or elsewhere to marry, the documents below contain information about how to obtain a license in California, and about legal implications for out-of-state couples who travel to California to marry. We encourage you to call Lambda Legal's help desk if you have specific questions about the legal ramifications for you individually, including how marriage to a same-sex spouse is likely to affect your legal obligations and eligibility for particular benefits and protections under Iowa law. For more information regarding whether to travel to California or another state or country to marry, see Lambda Legal's FAQs:

"Traveling to Another State or Country to Marry"

"Marriage for Same Sex Couples in California"

If you do choose to get married in California or elsewhere, we encourage you to call Lambda Legal before filing a lawsuit to seek respect for your marriage once you return home to Iowa. Lambda Legal may be able to assist you in getting your marriage recognized in some circumstances. Additionally, in a joint advisory, four legal groups and five other leading LGBT groups explain that while couples who go to another state or country to marry should ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, filing a lawsuit may not be a good idea. Ill-timed lawsuits are likely to set the fight for marriage back.

For more resources, visit Lambda Legal's Relationship Resources page.

Meanwhile, here in Iowa, Lambda Legal won a trial court victory last August on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking the right to marry, and three of their children. We currently are defending that victory before the Iowa Supreme Court, where we are waiting for oral argument to be scheduled. The Iowa Supreme Court could reach a decision in 2009. While there are never any guarantees in court cases, we are hopeful that the Iowa Supreme Court will affirm the trial court's powerful decision so that Iowa same-sex couples may plan their weddings soon in their own communities, joined by family and friends celebrating their commitment.

Read more about Lambda Legal's groundbreaking marriage lawsuit in Iowa and see a description of the briefs filed by Iowa and national leaders (including elected officials, child advocates, faith leaders, physicians and others) in support of same-sex couples seeking to marry.

Legal Unions Must Be Recognized in Iowa

As appeared in the Opinions Section of the Des Moines Register | June 5, 2008

Even if a majority of Iowa citizens do not wish to recognize gay marriage, that opinion will not matter in the long term. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states that, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

This aspect of the Constitution was the justification for the infamous Dred Scott decision, which declared that a slave remained a slave even after crossing into a free state. Under our current Constitution, a gay couple who has been married in another state can move to Iowa, demand and receive all the same rights and services due a traditional married couple.

To my knowledge, this has not yet become an issue, but the legal precedent is clear. When this issue comes to our state, the preferences and opinions of Iowa citizens will not matter under current federal law.

- Corey J. Smith, Iowa City

Constitutional amendment against gay marriage introduced in Congress

Ga. Rep. Paul Broun, 29 others sponsor legislation
By DYANA BAGBY, Southern Voice | May 30, 12:35 PM

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on May 22 to ban same-sex marriage, a result of the backlash by lawmakers upset with the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling legalizing gay marriage.

	U.S. Rep. Paul Brown (R-Ga.) introduced legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. (Photo by AP)

Broun, a freshman Congressman from Augusta, announced his intent to introduce the legislation on May 20 and got 29 co-sponsors to join him in introducing the bill, named the Marriage Protection Amendment. Other Georgians who have signed on as co-sponsors are Republicans Lynn Westmoreland and John Linder.

One co-sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), said in a statement posted on his website May 28 he was joining Broun as a co-sponsor because, “The recent decision by the California Supreme Court to overturn the state’s ban on homosexual marriage is an assault on the Judeo-Christian values of America.

“While North Carolina and numerous other states are fortunate to have strong marriage laws in place, these state laws are not immune from legal efforts to redefine marriage,” Jones said. “To ensure the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Congress needs to pass an amendment to our Constitution that no activist judge can overturn.”

Before it could become part of the Constitution, the amendment would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. House and Senate, and then ratified by 38, or three-fourths, of the state legislatures.

Other co-sponsors of the bill, all Republicans, are: Reps. Tom Feeney of Florida; Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania; John Shimkus of Illinois; Tim Walberg, Peter Hoekstra and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan; Brian Bilbray and Duncan Hunter of California; Dan Burton of Indiana; Trent Franks of Arizona; Barbara Cubin of Wyoming; Todd Akin of Missouri; John Peterson of Pennsylvania; Ralph Hall of Texas; Scott Garrett of New Jersey; Henry Brown of South Carolina; Virgil Goode of Virginia; Virginia Foxx and Robin Hayes of North Carolina; Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland; Mark Souder of Indiana; Robert Anderholt of Alabama, Jeff Miller of Florida, Steve King of Iowa; and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma.

Volunteers Needed for One Iowa Video Project!

One Iowa is gearing up to launch a new multimedia program to highlight equality and oppose intolerance. To that end, One Iowa is looking for volunteers to participate in an exciting video project. The final video will be debuted at all the Iowa Pride festivals this June as well as we move into the future and try to win Fairness for all Families in Iowa. We hope this video will call people to action...to become a part of an Iowa that is welcoming to all its citizens, an Iowa that values ALL families of ALL kinds, One Iowa.

We're looking for anyone and everyone to be a part of this movement for change and part of this video project. Families, individuals, couples, kids, parents, family members, allies, LGBT people, employers, friends, etc.

We'll be shooting video in three locations in Iowa City and Des Moines.

Iowa City
Where: Ped Mall outside the Sheraton
When: Friday, May 30th
What time: 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Iowa City
Where: College Green Park
When: Friday, May 30th
What time: 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM

Des Moines
Where: "Gay in the Gateway" West Gateway Park
When: Saturday, May 31st
What time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM

Please email Andrea at andrea@oneiowa.org if you'd like to participate. Tell your friends...The more people we have the better!

We'll have a media release for you to sign on site.

Thanks for your participation...If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call, 515.288.4019 ext. 205, and ask for Andrea.

The Culture War Disarmed

By Richard Kim

In mid-May Democrats were finally riding high again. Their contentious primary appeared to be drawing to a close, they had routed Republicans for a third time in a Congressional special election and Americans were looking to them to address a failed war and a failing economy. Then on May 15 the California Supreme Court voted four to three to legalize same-sex marriages. As if on cue, gays and lesbians took to the streets of The Castro, Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed to turn San Francisco's City Hall into a hot pink wedding chapel and right-wing demagogues announced that they would place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on California's fall ballot. Suddenly, conservatives like William Kristol were crowing about how resentment over "judicial activism" would help deliver John McCain the White House, and Democrats were seeing shades of 2004--when anti-gay marriage initiatives supposedly contributed to John Kerry's defeat.

But in fact, California's marital fireworks represent a more comforting reality for Democrats--the beginning of the end of the culture war. Nowhere is this sea change more evident than in the Golden State, where gay marriage has become a thoroughly mainstream proposition. In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time."

None of this will deter conservatives from pouring money, ground troops and vitriol into their campaign to get a marriage amendment passed, and they may well succeed this fall. But even that short-term victory won't change two fundamentals: in the presidential race, California will go to the Democratic candidate, and the idea of gay marriage--endorsed by the State Legislature, accepted by the Republican governor and supported by growing numbers of gay-friendly voters--has become for Californians as banal as a Hollywood divorce.

Indeed, for all the hoopla, the number of new rights California's gay couples picked up from the decision was this: zero. That's because California already had a same-sex domestic partnership statute on the books. Passed by the legislature in 1999 and expanded on several occasions to include more rights, California's domestic partnership laws are the most comprehensive in the nation, granting every right of coupledom a state can give absent federally recognized marriage. All the court did was give queers the m-word. This decision may have legal repercussions down the line, but in terms of actual economic and legal rights like access to spousal health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance, Californians had already arrived at the conclusion that these should be available to all regardless of sexual orientation. To be sure, the symbol of marriage may matter a lot to some, mainly marriage-minded gays and Christian conservatives, but few voters are willing to hang a national election on it. According to a May Gallup poll, just 16 percent of Americans think that a presidential candidate must share their view on gay marriage.

The California gay marriage debate illustrates important national trends for Democrats. Growing numbers of Americans favor gay rights, including some form of partnership recognition for same-sex couples, especially when framed as economic and legal rights. This is particularly true of young voters; in California 55 percent of voters under 30 support gay marriage, and nationwide 63 percent of voters under 40 support civil unions or domestic partnerships. But this trend also holds true for voters of all ages; a 2007 Field poll reported that Californians young and old were four times more likely to say they are becoming more accepting of gay relationships than less accepting. Moreover, when the symbolic weight of marriage is removed from the equation, support for gay rights becomes overwhelming. Nationwide, a whopping 89 percent of voters favor protecting gays and lesbians from employment discrimination.

Instead of fearing an anti-gay backlash, then, Democrats should take this moment to reconsider their longstanding assumption that cultural antagonisms can only hurt their national electoral prospects. Fearing the worst, for decades the Democrats caved to or triangulated around cultural conservatives, making ill-fated examples out of every Sister Souljah in the house and offering insulting sops to "family values," like video-game ratings. Indeed, the premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a "threat to civilization," the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether. An overdetermined catchphrase, "the culture war" was always an insult--most of all to the concept of culture itself, which the right wing reduced from a good or an aspiration to a series of cheap slurs aimed at liberals who drank too many lattes or hailed from the wrong places, like Massachusetts and San Francisco. But demography was always trending the other way, and now Starbucks lattes can be found in every small town, hip-hop is everywhere and homosexuals are here, queer and on the bridal registry--all of which elicits a collective yawn from the under-40 set.